Fighting For Democracy Or Giving It Away

Political Cartoon is by Ed Hall at Artizans.com.
 

There Were NO Good Trump Administration Officials!

The following is part of an op-ed in The New York Times by Michelle Goldberg:

A central theme of the Jan. 6 hearings has been Republican redemption. A parade of Republican witnesses has testified to being pushed beyond the limits of their loyalty to Donald Trump. For some, the breaking point came when he tried to enlist them in a scheme to overturn state elections. Others revolted at the former president’s attempts to corrupt the Justice Department, or at his role in inciting an insurrection. A rioter, awakened to Trump’s lies, testified about being misled; in a poignant moment after the seventh hearing, he apologized to the Capitol Police. . . .

If you believe, as I do, that Trump’s sociopathy makes him a unique threat to this country’s future, it makes sense to try to lure Republicans away from him rather than damn them for their complicity. There is a difference, however, between a smart narrative and an accurate one. In truth, you can’t cleave Trump and his most shameless antidemocratic enablers off from the rest of the Republican Party, because the party has been remade in his image. Plenty of ex-Trump officials have come off well in the hearings, including the former deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger, the former acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and, in video testimony, the former White House counsel Pat Cipollone. That shouldn’t erase the ignominy of having served Trump in the first place.

I have a lot of respect for Cheney, who is likely sacrificing her future in Republican politics in her attempt to hold Trump accountable, and for the bravery of witnesses like Cassidy Hutchinson, who testified despite the Trump camp’s reported attempt to intimidate her. But whatever they say now, the witnesses who worked for Trump enabled his mounting authoritarianism. Each contributed, in his or her own way, not just to Jan. 6, but also to eroding our democracy so that Jan. 6 may be just a prequel. Each helped bring us to a point where, according to a recent survey, more than half of Americans believe a civil war will erupt in the United States in the near future. . . .

One of the few Trumpists who seems to have really reckoned with what she participated in is Stephanie Grisham, who is Trump’s former press secretary, though she never held a news conference. “I don’t think I can rebrand; I think this will follow me forever,” she told New York magazine’s Olivia Nuzzi last year. “I believe that I was part of something unusually evil.”

They all were, everyone who kept that catastrophic administration functioning at a minimal level while Trump built the cult of personality that made Jan. 6 possible. It’s important to remember their culpability because Trump is probably going to run for president again, and he could win. If he does, Republicans who like to think of themselves as good people, who don’t want to spend their lives in the right-wing fever swamps, will be faced with the question of whether to serve him. They will see the former Trump officials who were able to rebrand despite sticking with him almost to the end, and they might think there’s not much to lose.

In his bracing book, “Why We Did It: A Travelogue From the Republican Road to Hell,” Tim Miller, a former Republican National Committee spokesman, tries to understand why friends and associates who once hated Trump eventually submitted to him. “There were thousands of people who at some level complied with Trump who weighed the costs,” he wrote. “Who knew the dangers,” who might have chosen a different path if “they could have imagined a different, more fulfilling future for themselves.” The Jan. 6 committee is trying, against the suck of Trump’s dark gravity, to point the way to such a future. To do that, it has been liberal with absolution. That doesn’t mean absolution is deserved. 

Arrogant Chicken

 Political Cartoon is by Ed Wexler at Cagle.com.

Pure Propaganda

 

U.S. Voters Don't Keep Up With Political News

 

Trump's Criminality Proven - When Will The DOJ Act?

 

There is no doubt that Donald Trump tried to overthrow a fair and legal election. It was just one of his criminal actions. Anyone not a member of his cult knows that. The question now is when, if at all, will the Department of Justice act and file charges against Trump?

The following op-ed is by Glenn Kirschner at MSNBC.com:

For weeks, if not months, leadership at the Department of Justicehas repeatedly told us they will follow the facts and the law and will hold Jan. 6 wrongdoers accountable “at any level.” Yet they provide few updates or concrete information. We have seen zero overt law enforcement activity against anyone but the foot soldiers of former President Donald Trump’s insurrection. In substance, the DOJ is asking the American people to trust them. But following the House’s final (at least for a while) Jan. 6 committee hearing on Thursday, that trust is eroding.

Over the course of these eight public Jan. 6 committee hearings, we have seen compelling (not circumstantial) evidence of Trump’s potential crimes. Former acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue testified that Trump told a group of department officials that it didn’t matter if the election was rife with fraud, adding, “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.” This is direct evidence — relayed by Donoghue under oath — of criminal intent. Trump apparently neither believed nor cared whether there was provable evidence of widespread election fraud, he simply wanted his DOJ officials to lie — "just say the election was corrupt" — and let him use that lie to help steal a second presidential term.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder described these statements as a “smoking gun” proving Trump’s corrupt intent, adding that it would be “laughable” for anyone to argue otherwise to a jury. I agree wholeheartedly with Holder. (Full disclosure: He was my direct boss when he was the United States attorney for the District of Columbia.) And for anyone who might dismiss Holder as hopelessly partisan, it’s worth remembering that before he served as U.S. attorney for D.C., he was nominated to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia — by President Ronald Reagan.

Similarly, Cassidy Hutchinson testified that prior to Trump's Jan. 6 speech on the Ellipse, he was informed that some of his supporters were armed with rifles, pistols and other deadly weapons. In a staggering display of callousness and disregard for the safety of others, Trump responded by demanding that security take down the metal detectors and let his supporters in anyway, because “they’re not here to hurt me.” As a career prosecutor, I would argue that the only reasonable inference from that statement is that Trump fully understood his armed supporters were a danger to lawmakers certifying the election win of his opponent. Trump also said that after his speech (i.e., after the metal detectors were removed and his armed mob was allowed in), they would all then march to the Capitol. This is powerful, direct evidence — relayed by Hutchinson under oath — that Trump intended to lead an armed mob to stop the election certification.

As we’ve watched this staggering — and, I’d hasten to add, legally admissible — evidence of Trump’s alleged crimes accumulate, DOJ inaction feels increasingly inexcusable.

Add to that the alarming recent New York Times reporting claiming Hutchinson’s testimony “jolted” the DOJ into a more direct consideration of Trump’s potential criminal responsibility. This revelation prompted former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann to accuse the DOJ of a “myopic focus on the Jan. 6 riot,” with too few signs of a “robust (DOJ) investigation.”

Even former U.S. Attorney (and MSNBC Columnist) Barb McQuaid, a long-time federal prosecutor with impeccable credentials and a healthy dose of circumspection, is now asking, “DOJ, you up yet?”

Lawlessness, unaddressed, begets lawlessness. And we now see Team Trump engaging in possible witness tampering as well. Given the lack of DOJ action, there seems to be no serious deterrence in place.

And to be clear, if the revelations of Donoghue and Hutchinson, detailed above, are smoking-gun evidence, witness tampering is loaded-gun evidence. Professionally, I’ve had far too many chances to deal with instances of such meddling. Corruptly attempting to influence, impede or prevent the truthful testimony of a witness strikes right at the very heart of the integrity of any investigation, congressional or criminal. Prosecutors take these allegations seriously, and investigate them as quickly as possible.

Is federal law enforcement doing the same?

Lest we forget, the House voted to hold Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress for refusing to appear before the Jan. 6 committee. Meadows, Trump's former chief of staff, appeared so determined to conceal Trump’s behavior that he risked possible criminal charges. But DOJ declined to indict. In a legal sense, I think DOJ should be looking at Meadows not only for the crime of contempt of Congress but also the federal offenses of accessory after the fact and misprision of a felony. In a lay sense, Meadows certainly appears to be involved in a cover-up. And still, he has been given a pass.

This failure to charge Meadows, Trump or any of the other Trump associates who seem to be in the thick of the corrupt efforts to overthrow our democracy exposes a deep injustice presently at play.

The testimony of defendant Stephen Ayres during the last hearing highlighted the DOJ’s disparity of treatment. Trump deceived, duped and lied to the American people, telling them their votes were stolen, the presidential election was corrupt, urging them to come to D.C. for a “wild” protest and then whipping them into a frenzy and instructing them to fight like hell.

Thousands of loyal supporters believed these lies and acted on these commands. And now, hundreds upon hundreds of his supporters are being prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for doing precisely what their president told them to do.

And where is Donald Trump? Golfing and holding rallies at which he still pushes the big lie, inciting and enraging those who still choose to listen to a two-bit conman. And almost a year and a half after Joe Biden’s inauguration, Wisconsin state Assembly Speaker Robin Vos says Trump called him this very month and pushed him to try to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Such inequity is a stain on our government.

Now, I have long cautioned that we should give the DOJ enough time to do its thing. But my view has always been premised on the assumption that DOJ has, indeed been doing a thorough, far-reaching, aggressive investigation behind the scenes. My growing concern with each new data point is that for reasons that may have little to do with the facts or the law, DOJ is not doing the kind of investigation our democracy needs to survive.

No Respect For Women

Political Cartoon is by Ed Hall at Artizans.com.
 

Bertrand Russell On Religion

 

Evil Must Be Punished

 

Most Say Lack Of Child Care Keeps Women From Working

 The charts above are from a recent YouGov Poll -- done on July 14th and 15th of a nationwide sample of 5,392 adults. The margin of error would be less that 3 points.

Standing Around And Doing Nothing

 Political Cartoon is by Ward Sutton at suttonimpactstudio.com.

Americans Are Retiring Later Than In The Past

The charts above are from the Gallup Poll, using information gathered recently and in the past. The recent survey was done between April 1st and 19th of a nationwide sample of 1,018 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

If It Was The Other Way Around

Political Cartoon is by Dave Whamond at Cagle.com.
 

Trump Didn't Want To Stop The Riot He Had Started

The following is an editorial by the editorial board of The Washington Post:

The real action of the prime-time hearing Thursday on the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol was the inaction: the 187 minutes that President Donald Trump spent doing next to nothing while an armed mob of his supporters stormed the seat of government in a deadly insurrection.

Thursday’s hearing was the eighth in a series that started in June, and though it sounded like the closing chapter to the case, the House select committee conducting the investigation has promised there’s more to come. For now, though, Thursday night was a fitting coda.

Reps. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), both military veterans, took viewers through a minute-by-minute account of those more than three hours during which the commander in chief sat idly by as rioters tore through the chambers of Congress. Testimony from senior aides, including former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, revealed how Mr. Trump sat in the Oval Office dining room watching the horror unfold on Fox News, refusing to walk the mere steps down the West Wing hallway to the press briefing room to give the public statement condemning the rioters that his White House counsel, his chief of staff and even his family members begged him to make.

He did not call the National Guard, or the FBI, or D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D), or anyone else who could have provided aid. He did call senators, urging them to continue objecting to the certification of the vote. He did call Rudy Giuliani. Why? This was his only chance to stop an electoral count declaring him the election’s loser. As Mr. Kinzinger put it in his opening statement, “The mob was accomplishing President Trump’s purpose, so of course he didn’t intervene.”

The presenters argued Thursday that not calling off the assault was a dereliction of duty. That’s certainly true. Yet it was also something worse: an effective endorsement of that day’s horrific events, delivered in the form of all-too-meaningful silence, and punctuated with tweets that made clear exactly what the lame-duck leader was trying to communicate. Most alarmingly: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what was necessary,” Mr. Trump wrote at 2:24 p.m., as his supporters on the National Mall chanted, “Hang Mike Pence!” The impact was real: The emboldened mob was threatening enough that some members of the vice president’s security detail asked colleagues to tell their loved ones goodbye.

The new details shared Thursday are damning on their own, but they’re more damning still read alongside everything else the committee has laid out these past several weeks. Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, his top campaign lawyer, his lead data analyst and even his attorney general told him he had lost the election. Instead of abating his efforts to overturn the results, he escalated them. He not only pressured officials to “find” votes for him, or to submit rogue slates of electors, but he also rendered the explosion of Jan. 6 all but inevitable by summoning his followers to Washington and directing them to the Capitol, knowing they would go to extremes for him.

That all this culminated in violence was no surprise, and no accident. Mr. Trump had the power to start what occurred on Jan. 6, and he had the power to stop it. Having exercised the former, he withheld the latter. This was indeed a violation of his oath of office — one that began the moment he realized he had lost the election, and one that continued until the disaster he invited had finally struck. Now the country must figure out what to do about it.